(Abaye): If one says '(this is your Get) when the sun will leave its case', all agree, this means from when it rises. If he died during the night, it is a posthumous Get, and is Pasul;

If he said 'on condition that the sun will leave its case', he means that the Get should take effect immediately;

(Rav Huna): Saying 'on condition' is like saying 'from now.'

They argue about when he says 'if it will go out,'

Those who hold like R. Yosi, who says that the date on a document shows that it takes effect from the date, say that it is as if he said 'it is a Get from today if I die';

Those who argue with R. Yosi say that it is as if he said 'it should be a Get if I die.'

(Mishnah): If he said 'write and give a Get to my wife if I don't come within 12 months'...

Suggestion (Rav Yemar): R. Yosi (who says that the Get is valid) must hold that one may write a Get on Tanai, even if the Tanai was not fulfilled!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): No. This case is different, for he should have said 'if I don't come within 12 months, write and give...';

He instead said 'write... if I don't...' to show that the Get should be written now.

Chachamim do not distinguish between the two ways of saying it.

(Beraisa): If one said '(give a Get if I do not come) after the Shemitah cycle', we wait one year after Shemitah. If he said 'after a year', we wait (another) month; if he said 'after a month', we wait one week;

Question: If he said 'after Shabbos' what is the law?

Answer (R. Zeira): The three days after Shabbos are considered after Shabbos. The three days before the coming Shabbos are considered before Shabbos.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If he said 'after the festival', we wait 30 days.

R. Chiya taught this law in Rebbi's name, and the listeners approved. He taught it in the name of Chachamim, and the listeners did not show approval.

He concluded that the Halachah does not follow this teaching.

(Mishnah): If one threw a Get to his wife when she was in her house or Chatzer (courtyard), it is valid;

If he threw it in his own house or Chatzer, even if [the Get] is with her on the bed, it is Pasul;

If he throws it into her garment or basket, it is valid.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "and he puts in her hand" obligates putting the Get in her hand, but not in her roof or yard!

Rejection: "And he puts" teaches that he may put in anywhere (that belongs to her).

We learn similarly about a thief.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps a thief is liable only if the stolen item is found "in his hand", but not in his roof or yard!

Rejection: "Found, will be found" obligates him no matter where (in his property) it is found.

The Torah needed to teach both of these:

Had it taught only about a Get, one might have thought that that is because she is divorced against her will; but theft, which is only when he intends, must be in his hand;

Had it taught only about theft, one might have thought that the Torah punishes a thief, but a Get must enter her hand.

Question: The Mishnah discusses her yard. A man acquires his wife's property. It is like his yard!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): The case is, he wrote to her 'I have no claims to your property,'

Objection: This doesn't help!

(Beraisa): If one said to his partner 'I have no claims on this field', 'I have no involvement with it', or 'my hand is withdrawn from it', his words are void.

Answer #2 (R. Yanai): He wrote this to her during Eirusin (before Nisu'in);

He holds like Rav Kahana, and like Rava:

(Rav Kahana): One may stipulate that he does not want to inherit an inheritance mid'Rabanan.

(Rava): If one says 'I do not want the enactment Chachamim made to help me', in a case like this (Rav Huna's law), we heed his words.

(Rav Huna): A woman can tell her husband 'do not feed me, and I will not give to you my earnings.'

Objection (Rava): Even when he puts the Get in her hand, we must explain why it works. Also her hand belongs to him!

Answer #3 (Rava): We must say, the moment the Get is put in her hand, she is divorced and simultaneously gets back her Yad (power of acquisition).

Also regarding her roof or yard, the moment the Get enters them, she is divorced and they are hers.

Question (Ravina): Why does Rava need to explain how a Get works when he puts it in her hand?

Granted, he owns the productivity of her hands, but he does not own her hands!

Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava meant, we must explain the opinion (Kidushin 22b) that a slave can himself receive a Get of freedom from his master.

A slave's hand is like his master's hand (whatever he acquires belongs to the master)!

Rava answered that when a Get of freedom is put in a slave's hand, he simultaneously goes free and acquires his Yad;

This can also explain how a woman can receive a Get in her roof or yard!

A Shechiv Mera wrote a Get to his wife shortly before Shabbos. He was unable to give it before Shabbos. He did not expect to survive until after Shabbos.

Rava: He should give to her, for a gift, the place where the Get is resting. She should close the door there (on Shabbos) to acquire it through Chazakah.

(Mishnah): One acquires through Chazakah by locking up, fencing, or breaching a fence.

Rav Ilish: How will it help her to acquire the area? What a wife acquires belongs to her husband!

Rava was embarrassed. Later, it was found that she was only an Arusah.

(Rava): A husband gets only what his wife acquires after Nisu'in, not during Eirusin.

Retraction (Rava): Even if she was Nesu'ah, my suggestion works. She acquires the area at the moment of divorce!

Question: Rava already said this above!

Answer: The above statement was Rava's conclusion about this case.

(Mishnah): If she was in her house...(she is divorced when he throws the Get in).

(Ula): We must say that she is standing next to her house or yard.

(R. Oshaya): No, she may even be in a different city.

Question (Mishnah): If she was in her house...

Answer: It means, it is as if she was in her house. Because her house is being guarded for her, she is divorced.

Suggestion: Ula holds that the Torah allows her to receive the Get in her yard because her yard is considered like her hand (it must be near her). R. Oshaya holds that her yard is like her Shali'ach.

Rejection: No, all hold that it is like her hand;

Ula requires it to be near her, like her hand;

Objection (on behalf of R. Oshaya): If so, we should require that it be attached to her, as her hand! Rather, it must be guarded for her, like her hand.

This excludes a yard not guarded for her.

A man threw a Get to his wife in the yard. It fell on a piece of wood.

(Rav Yosef): If the piece is four Amos by four Amos, it is a domain to itself, and she is not divorced. If it is less than this, it is like the yard, and she is divorced.

Question: Whose yard is it?

If it is her yard, even if the piece is four by four, she should be divorced!

If it is his yard, even if the piece is not four by four, she should not be divorced!

Answer: The case is, he lent to her a place in his yard to acquire the Get.

One lends only one place. If the wood is like an independent place, he did not lend it as well.

We assumed that the piece of wood is not 10 Tefachim tall. If it is, it is a place unto itself even if it is not four by four Amos.

We assumed that the wood does not have a special name. If it does, it is a place unto itself even if it is not four by four and not 10 Tefachim tall.